Diversity of Everything but Thought

Revel writes:

Quote:

In any event, kennedy was not a conservative in the way of George Bush. I noticed that in my quick search.

You're right. In his day, JFK was more progressive than were many other Democrats or some of the staunch old guard Republicans, but he was far more conservative than is George W. Bush now.

One thing if we are to achieve tolerance for diversity of thought is to rid ourselves of the notion that "progressive" = "liberal".

And the classical definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative' bear no resemblance to the modern understanding of 'liberal' and 'conservative' today.

As I see it, modern conservatives put faith in the individual and the private sector more than they put faith in government. Traditional values are usually cherished including community customs, marriage, public decency, personal freedom, patriotism, industriousness, excellence etc.--every member of the family is considered important including the unborn. Modern conservatives believe charity is a matter of personal conscience and not a function of government except to provide for those who are truly helpless and cannot provide for themselves. Modern conservatives put importance on things being real: education, the benefits of a program or initiative, etc. and will look for a better way to achieve competence and excellence when it is obvious that these are lacking. Modern conservatives put less importance on a person's ethnicity or color or gender or background but rather judge all people on what they say and do and contribute. Modern conservatives believe we each much bear responsibility for the choices we make. Modern conservatives believe the best charity is creating an environment and opportunities so that charity is unnecessary and government should contribute to that or get out of the way so as not to hinder it.

Modern liberals put faith in the government more than the private sector and look to government to solve the problems of society. Modern liberals often see inadequate government funding more than process/policy as the root of social problems. Modern liberals frequently reject more traditional values in the name of free expression, inclusiveness, tolerance, self esteem, equality of situation and outcome. Modern liberals generally see the intent as much or more important than the result. Modern liberals put great importance on ethnicity or color or gender or background in order to understand degrees of victimization of various people or groups and thereby determine what society owes to these people. It is more important to understand and care than it is to require results. Allowances must be made for victims of society and these cannot be expected or required to contribute as the privileged can be expected (or required) to contribute. Liberals believe the best charity is providing for the less fortunate and advantaged and it is the function of government to do that.

There is a lot more that I think about these two ideologies of course, and I fully realize that almost nobody is 100% anything but we are all a mixture of all. I personally am far more conservative than liberal, but I do hold a liberal view or two.

In response to DTOM's question about extremes:

I see the abortion clinic bombers, murderers of abortion doctors, those who demand creationism be taught and evolution not be taught in the schools, the white supremists, and such as that as the radical wild-eyed lunatic fringe on the conservative side.

I see the tree spikers, those who throw blood on women wearing fur coats, those who demand all evidence of religious faith be removed from all public settings, those who seek to punish people for having a different point of view, the sit-in-on-legal-business people and such as that as the radical wild-eyed lunatic fringe on the liberal side.

I think both liberals and conservatives value personal freedoms equally, but I think they see such freedoms differently. I think both liberals and conservatives are compassionate equally, but they see the best way to be compassionate differently. I think both liberals and conservatives are patriotic and value good citizenship, but I think they see those things somewhat differently.

The point is, can we ever get to the point where we can see things differently without seeing those who think differently as being evil?

Revel,

If your spouse doesn't dig museums, then spend the day alone. Wear comfortable shoes, and you might like to take a small notebook. Its surprising how much standing and walking one can do once you start prowling the exhibition rooms. You probably will see some art that really "speaks" to you, note down the artist's name, the title of the picture, and perhaps a line as a reminder of what it was that "grabbed" you. Most of the art museums I've visited have a lunch counter or restaurant, and a gift shop. Plan on lunch (say $10), and sometimes museums will have a nominal charge for entry. Many museums these days will rent a set of earphones and a tape player that has interesting information about the various paintings and artists represented in the museum's collection. For your first visit to an art museum, you might find the recorded tour worth the few buckeroos it will cost to rent.

If you can convince your spouse to accompany you, you might be surprised to find that they become interested in seeing and learning something new. Some folks will plant their heels and absolutely refuse to "waste their time" looking at a bunch of pictures. Don't push them too hard, after all they can spend the day doing something they enjoy that you find boring.

Between now and the time that you may get up to Louisville, visit your local library. Survey the Art Section and checkout some coffee table size books with large color representations of art work. You might like to look at works by the various painters of the Impressionist Movement. Impressionism is popular, and most museums have at least some impressionist works in their collections. If you like landscapes the Hudson River School of American Painters are worth spending some time with. Books of fine reproductions are available for almost any school/style, or well-known artist you can imagine. The text in the books will help you to understand, and greater appreciate, the pictures you see. What should one look for? Well ... composition, color, texture, paint technique, and even subject. Some paintings "tell a story", others have symbolic content, and still others have no meaning beyond they are eye-candy and look great. The more you look at artwork, the more you will appreciate it. The more you learn about art, the more sophisticated your personal aesthetic will become. Art can transform you, if your just a wee bit open to it.

Have fun. And now back to the subject at hand.

As has been pointed out so well by Pdiddie, Fox, you ARE accepting anecdotal evidence.

The difference is, MY evidence is first-hand; you haven't taught or taken courses at a college in years, so what do you really know of the current atmosphere? Not much, and there's little doubt that what opinions you DO have are colored by your, shall we say, imaginative political beliefs.

Across the country, college students who hold conservative views are coming forward with dozens of reports of incidents in which they assert that professors treated them differently than their more-liberal peers. On Web sites that collect such anecdotes and in other forums, the students tell stories of faculty members who made demeaning jokes about Republicans and spent class time urging students to protest the war in Iraq. Some of the students expressed the belief that their conservative opinions, no matter how well argued, have resulted in low grades. Others describe reading lists that include controversial material that is unrelated to the subject matter

There is a plethora of material/articles/commentary out there re bias felt from conservative students. I have honestly looked for anything that would support a university intent to provide a balanced, equitable, and even handed curriculum and so far have come up empty.

As far as individual perception goes, personal ideology plays a huge role I think. Our more liberal members on A2K see no bias at all in the alphabet news sources but think Fox is so biased it earns only their contempt. The more conservative members think Fox is far more fair and balanced than are any of the alphabet media sources.